Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

Variation Theory and Conceptual Change

Abstract
The learning of programming is regarded as difficult and involving a number of
conceptual changes around critical concepts. Although there is research into
problems that learners have with the mental models of programmers, minimal
effort has gone into design learning sequences to overcome the learning
obstacles (threshold concepts). The objective of this project is to establish a
collaboration to explore the use of pedagogical patterns based on the use of
variation theory to address conceptual understanding of threshold concepts in
learning to program.

Background
The key to learning is not simply obtaining more facts but undergoing
conceptual change. Meyer and Land (2005) emphasise the importance of
conceptual change when they discuss the transformative nature in coming to
understand what they call threshold concepts. They describe threshold concepts
as being “transformative (occasioning a significant shift in the perception of a
subject), irreversible (unlikely to be forgotten, or unlearned only through
considerable effort), and integrative (exposing the previously hidden
interrelatedness of something). In addition they may also be troublesome and/or
they may lead to troublesome knowledge for a variety of reasons” (pp. 373-374).

A key difficulty in presenting threshold concepts is to open up the opportunity


for learning in a way that both engages the learner and makes visible the
concept. Marton, Runesson, and Tsui (2003) argue that the space of learning
involves a pattern of variation that makes visible the object of learning to the
learner. They contend that these patterns of variation involve contrast,
generalization, separation, and fusion.

Learning to program research has focused on what are seen as key concepts
(nature of a program (Thompson, 2008)), and the concept of class and object
(Berglund & Lister, 2007; Eckerdal & Thuné, 2005). Eckerdal et al. (2006)
threshold concepts in the context of computer science focusing on mental
models, abstraction, and object-orientation. Eckerdal and Berglund (2005) have

Aston University, Aston Triangle Birmingham, West Midlands B4 7ET


Phone: +44 121 2043294 E-Mail: e.l.thompson1@aston.ac.uk
Variation Theory and
10 November 2014 Aston University Conceptual Change 2

also explored how students understand what it means to “learn to program”.


Minimal work has been conducted on approaches to teaching that draw on
learning theory. Teaching tools have been developed (Denny, Luxton-Reilly,
Tempero, & Hendrickx, 2011; Diwan, Waite, Jackson, & Dickerson, 2004;
Ferguson, 2006; Gelderblom, 2000; Kölling & Henriksen, 2005; Kölling, Quig,
Patterson, & Rosenberg, 2003; Victor, 2012) and pedagogical patterns written
(Bennedsen & Eriksen, 2006; Bergin, 2000; Eckstein, Manns, & Voelter, 2001;
Haberman, 2006) but these do not focus on threshold concepts in learning to
program or developing computational thinking.

This project aims to evaluate the effectiveness of pedagogical patterns based on


variation theory primarily in the learning of critical programming concepts in
either learning a first programming language or in applying computational
thinking.

Funding has already been obtained through an Engineering and Applied Science
School Scholarship to have a PhD student work on the project.

Method
This project will identify a threshold concept in the teaching of programming
based on a literature review. Critical aspects related to the threshold concept will
be identified either via reported phenomenographic studies or by conducting
studies. These identified critical aspects will be used in planning the initial
teaching cycle. Using the pedagogical pattern tool (Laurillard, 2012), pedagogical
patterns will be developed for opening up the space of learning around the
critical aspects of the threshold concept. Either a control / experimental group or
a pre-test / post-test approach will be used to endeavor to uncover the
conceptual change that has occurred around the threshold concept as a result of
using the pedagogical pattern. Since the critical aspects are learner dependent, it
is important that the pattern facilitates the identification of the critical aspects
that hinder learner understanding of a concept in a transformative (Mezirow &
Associates, 2000).

Collaborators
Dr Errol Thompson of Aston University is involved in the teaching of
programming and has conducted research into the learning of programming and
novice programmer understanding of program code. In his research, he has
Variation Theory and
10 November 2014 Aston University Conceptual Change 3

drawn upon educational theories including variation theory to establish a base


for his research.

Professor Ming Fai Pang of Hong Kong University is a leading researcher in


variation theory and it use in conducting learning studies.

Aims and Objectives


The aim of the project is to develop and validate pedagogical patterns around
the teaching of a threshold concept that can be transferred to other teachers or
learning facilitators and can be used as a potential base for the development of a
smart learning environment.

The future vision is to be able to use the pedagogical patterns to aid in the
design of a smart learning environment. This environment is envisaged as
adapting to the learner based on the learning environment’s assessment of the
learner’s critical aspects of the phenomenon being taught.

Further into the future such systems may be used to encourage and foster
conceptual change that has impact on resolving societal problems or
encouraging societal reform.

References
Bennedsen, J., & Eriksen, O. (2006). Categorizing pedagogical patterns by
teaching activities and pedagogical values. Computer Science Education,
16(2), 157172. doi: DOI: 10.1080/08993400600768091
Bergin, J. (2000, July). Fourteen pedagogical patterns. from
http://csis.pace.edu/~bergin/PedPat1.3.html
ObjectOriented/PedagogicalPatterns/Bergin200014PedagogicalPatterns.pdf
Berglund, A., & Lister, R. (2007). Debating the OO debate: Where is the problem?
Paper presented at the Seventh Baltic Sea Conference on Computing
Education Research (Koli Calling 2007), Koli National Park, Finland.
LearningToProgram/ObjectsFirst/BerglundLister2007Koli.pdf
Denny, P., Luxton-Reilly, A., Tempero, E., & Hendrickx, J. (2011). CodeWrite:
supporting student-driven practice of java. Paper presented at the
Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science
education, Dallas, TX, USA.
LearningToProgram\TeachingTools\Denny2011SIGCSE.pdf
Diwan, A., Waite, W. M., Jackson, M. H., & Dickerson, J. (2004). PL-dectective: A
system for teaching programming language concepts. ACM Journal of
Educational Resources, 4(4), 1-22.
Eckerdal, A., & Berglund, A. (2005, 1-2 October). What does it take to learn
'Program thinking'? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2005
Variation Theory and
10 November 2014 Aston University Conceptual Change 4

international workshop on Computing education research (ICER 2005),


University of Washington, Seattle.
Eckerdal, A., McCartney, R., Moström, J. E., Ratcliffe, M., Sanders, K., & Zander, C.
(2006). Putting threshold concepts into context in computer science
education. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 11th Conference on
innovation and technology in computer science education, Bologna, Italy.
LearningToProgram/ResearchIssues/Eckerdaletal2006ITiCSE.pdf
Eckerdal, A., & Thuné, M. (2005, 27-29 June). Novice Java programmers'
conceptions of "object" and "class", and variation theory. Paper presented
at the ITiCSE'05, Monte de Caparica, Portugal.
Eckstein, J., Manns, M. L., & Voelter, M. (2001). Pedagogical patterns: capturing
best practices in teaching object technology. Software Focus, 2(1), 9-12.
Ferguson, E. (2006). Role playing in object-oriented programming and design
courses: nifty course assignments. Journal of Computing Sciences in
Colleges, 21(4), 92-94.
Gelderblom, J. H. (2000). OOPtutor: A CBL system for introductory object-
oriented programming. Inroads - The SIGCSE Bulletin, 32(2), 35-38.
Haberman, B. (2006). Pedagogical patterns: A means for communication within
the CS teaching community of practice. Computer Science Education,
16(2), 87-103. doi: DOI: 10.1080/08993400600786994
Kölling, M., & Henriksen, P. (2005). Game programming in introductory courses
with direct state manipulation. Inroads - The SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(3), 59-
63.
Kölling, M., Quig, B., Patterson, A., & Rosenberg, J. (2003). The BlueJ system and
its pedagogy. Computer Science Education, 13(4), 249-268.
Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a design science : building pedagogical
patterns for learning and technology. New York; London: Routledge.
Marton, F., Runesson, U., & Tsui, A. B. M. (2003). The space of learning. In F.
Marton & A. B. M. Tsui (Eds.), Classroom discourse and the space of
learning (pp. 3-40). Mahwah, NJ; London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publishers.
Meyer, J. H. F., & Land, R. (2005). Threshold concepts and troublesome
knowledge (2): Epistemological considerations and a conceptual
framework for teaching and learning. Higher Education, 49(3), 373-388.
doi: DOI: 10.1007/s10734-004-6779-5
Mezirow, J., & Associates. (2000). Learning as transformation: critical
perspectives on a theory in progress (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Thompson, E. (2008). How do they understand? Practitioner perceptions of an
object-oriented program. (PhD Dissertation), Massey University,
Palmerston North.
Victor, B. (2012, September). Learnable Programming: Designing a programming
system for understanding programs. from
http://worrydream.com/LearnableProgramming/

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi